Obama Admits He Was Wrong About the Surge
Nevada Pundit has the details.
Mighty nice of him, don’t ya think?
27 comments September 5th, 2008
Posts with the tag 'Troop Surge'
US Troops to Leave Baghdad
In a way Obama and his Democrats can’t stand - with victory:
General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, said declining violence in Baghdad raised the possibility that American combat troops could leave the capital by next summer.
Asked in an interview with the Financial Times whether it was feasible that US combat forces could leave Baghdad by July, he said: “Conditions permitting, yeah.”
His comments come as the US and Iraq hammer out the final details of a long-term security agreement that reportedly outlines a potential timeline for US combat troops to leave Iraqi cities by next summer, and the country by 2011.
“The number of attacks in Baghdad lately has been, gosh, I think it’s probably less than five [a day] on average, and that’s a city of seven million people,” said Gen Petraeus.
While declining to comment on the details of the security agreement, Gen Petraeus said US combat forces had already pulled back from cities in 13 of Iraq’s 18 provinces. The sight of US soldiers exiting Baghdad would be highly symbolic given the scale of violence that gripped the city in 2006 and 2007.
Is that unfair comment? No. Obama wanted the last US soldier out of Iraq on March 31st, which would have ensured defeat…and as Obama thought this was a good idea, he must think that US defeat is a good thing.
You wanted him, you got him, Democrats…are ya startin’ to feel like you’ve been ripped off?
12 comments September 4th, 2008
McCain’s Iraq Surge Overwhelms Obama’s Retreat and Defeat
Making dreams come true seems to be the norm these days for our wonderful men and women in uniform. Security and responsibility for the Anbar Province in Iraq was handed over to the Iraqis today.
“This would have been a dream two or three years ago. This was the cradle of Al Qaeda.”
– Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser
At the same time, the success of the surge can be seen through the dramatic drop in civilian casualties:
This invaluable chart is provided by Professor John Wixted’s “Back Talk” blog, who concludes thusly:
“No matter how you slice it, the troop surge has been an almost unbelievable success . . . There is no escaping the fact that when it mattered the most, Obama strongly supported abandoning Iraq to the wolves of al Qaeda. That’s definitely not the judgment we need.”
37 comments September 1st, 2008
Anbar Province Turned Over to Iraqi Authority
Yep, sure glad we took Obama’s sage advice and got the last US soldier out of Iraq on March 31st:
BAGHDAD — The U.S. military has handed over security control of the western province of Anbar to Iraqi forces.
The province was once a hotbed of the Sunni Arab insurgency, and the scene of some of the bloodiest battles of the Iraq war.
The handover marks a major milestone in America’s strategy of turning security over to the Iraqis so U.S. troops can eventually go home.
In the ceremony Monday in the provincial capital of Ramadi, the top American commander in Anbar, Marine Maj. Gen. John Kelly, said Al Qaeda has not been entirely defeated in Anbar. But he said, “their end is near.”
Because, you see, there is no way for the military to play a roll here - we should have withdrawn because that is what the Iraqis wanted, and we should have done Biden’s bidding and partitioned the nation, because that is what some Americans wanted…
Any of you lefties starting to realise how silly you look?
And let’s all be thankful that President Bush ignored John McCain’s advice…I mean, think about it! For crying out loud, what would increased US troop levels done other than make more terrorists?
15 comments September 1st, 2008
Meanwhile, In That War Obama Wanted Us to Lose…
Life starts to surge in Iraq:
Pool Reopening Symbolizes Return to Normalcy in Northern Baghdad
“One of the first patrols we went on was to go assess this pool,” said Army Capt. Clint Rusch, a Multinational Division Baghdad fire-support officer.
Rusch, who along with his unit began operations here in early February, described the scene at the compound. Putrid-smelling water filled the three pools. A concession stand was decrepit, and an outer wall was crumbling, he said.
After that initial patrol, Rusch conferred with Army Maj. Olaf Shibusawa, Steel Company’s civil affairs officer, and started hatching a plan of how to make changes there.
Major renovations included repairing the outer wall, remodeling shower rooms and refurbishing the concession stand. Once the other details were decided upon, a contract was awarded and work began in early March. But after hostilities flared up in Sadr City in late March, work was halted for five weeks.
The ribbon-cutting ceremony Aug. 26 marked the official reopening of the complex, but its doors have been able to remain open for business during refurbishment, collecting about $2 per admission. The accompanying pool hall also remains open and is a popular hangout for residents.
“Our contractor didn’t want to drain the pool completely when kids are still using it, so he was able to set it up so the kids could swim while construction was going on. They were working 24 hours a day on the project,” Rusch said.
“The perfect end state would be that the project becomes self-sufficient – it doesn’t require any American influence to be able to continue,” Rusch said. “We want the community to have the ability to experience a part of childhood that every kid should have,” he said.
Never, never, never forget that Obama wanted that last US soldier out of Iraq on March 31st…in service of an absurd, leftwing political dogma that America at war is always wrong, Obama urged us to surrender Iraq to the terrorists and their Iranian masters, while John McCain - standing forthright for country over politics - urged us to fight on until victory. This, in and of itself, demonstrates that McCain is ready to be President, while Obama still isn’t even ready to be a Senator.
15 comments August 29th, 2008
John McCain at the VFW
While Obama whines about mythical attacks on his patriotism, John McCain speaks the blunt truth:
Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight, a great deal still depends on the decisions and good judgment of the next president. The hard-won gains of our troops hang in the balance. The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines. And this is one of many problems in the shifting positions of my opponent, Senator Obama.
With less than three months to go before the election, a lot of people are still trying to square Senator Obama’s varying positions on the surge in Iraq. First, he opposed the surge and confidently predicted that it would fail. Then he tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge. Not content to merely predict failure in Iraq, my opponent tried to legislate failure. This was back when supporting America’s efforts in Iraq entailed serious political risk. It was a clarifying moment. It was a moment when political self-interest and the national interest parted ways. For my part, with so much in the balance, it was an easy call. As I said at the time, I would rather lose an election than lose a war.
Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines and to brave Iraqi fighters the surge has succeeded. And yet Senator Obama still cannot quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment. Nor has he been willing to heed the guidance of General Petraeus, or to listen to our troops on the ground when they say — as they have said to me on my trips to Iraq: “Let us win, just let us win.” Instead, Senator Obama commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory. In short, both candidates in this election pledge to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference is that I intend to win it first.
Once we got into Iraq, the fundamental question for each American to answer was, “do you want to win, or do you want to lose?”. There is no “end” to a war - a war is won or a war is lost. Vietnam didn’t “end” - we lost. The enemy won. Those who relied upon us to keep our word were coldly betrayed and subjected to a horrific fate because the controlling powers in the United States decided to lose the war. John McCain answered the question: he wants to win. Barack Obama answered the question: he wants to lose.
Oh, to be sure, Obama will never say it that way - in fact, he might not even be aware he’s advocating the defeat of the United States, the country he proposes to lead. So disconnected is the left from reality and so ignorant are most leftists of the way the world works, it is very possible that Obama really thinks you can “end” a war, no harm and no foul, and go forward without any consequences of your defeat. He may think, that is, that after he scuttles Iraq that the enemy will take him seriously about Afghanistan and that Iran would be ready to meet us on the square after we cut and ran from Iraq. Its an absurd way to view the world, but Obama just might think like that - and there’s the really frightening thing about the prospect of a President Obama.
As noted earlier regarding Afghanistan, there is still plenty of fight left in the enemy and the curious nature of the War on Terrorism is that no matter how bad off the enemy is, as long as he can preserve any part of his power, he can rebuild. We must keep battling in this war until the enemy - which is really the States who sponsor and shield terrorist groups - become convinced that terrorism is a losing prospect and that America will never quit until every last terrorist is dead or taken. When President Bush said at the start of this war that it was a generational fight, he was dead on - and McCain also understands the long term nature of this war; Obama seems to think that we can fiddle around with a little battle here, a little diplomacy there and leave it to the cops and regular legal procedure and all will be well. The folly of Obama would eventually be writ large in the number of dead as a revived terrorist enemy strikes hard at a United States perceived as weak and divided.
McCain is the man who can lead us through the next four years of war - the man we can rely on to keep fighting, and never lost faith. He’s proven this by word and deed throughout his life, and we’d be worse than fools to choose Obama over McCain this November.
23 comments August 20th, 2008
Tiger Cubs Arrive at Baghdad Zoo
Still waiting for the liberal, Bush-hating, anti-war left to admit that we’ve won:
After traveling more than 7,000 miles, two Bengal tiger cubs have finally settled into their new home in Iraq. Amid much fanfare and excitement, Hope and Riley were introduced to the Baghdad Zoo on Aug. 8.
The tigers were a goodwill gesture from the North Carolina Conservators’ Center, a breeding sanctuary for endangered species.
“We are building trust with America,” said Dr. Adel Salman Mousa, the zoo’s director. “We’re building trust with a society that trusted us to care for these animals.”
The cubs are just under 2 years old and weigh more than 150 pounds each. The Bengal tiger is an endangered species, with less than 3,000 worldwide.
“We hope to bring smiles back to the people and the children,” Mousa said. “We want to put smiles back on their faces after years of misery. In addition to the enjoyment people will get from watching them, they will present opportunities for students and the public to learn about this and other endangered species.”
Iraq is still not a bed of roses and there remains fighting to be done - but given all the news we’ve seen out of Iraq over the past month or two, it is incontrovertible that we - and the Iraqis - have won this fight…and that President Bush’s vision for a liberated Iraq building up an alternative worldview in the Arab/Moslem world has been vindicated…and, of course, that McCain’s courageous advocacy of the surge has proven far more valid than Obama’s “cut and run” approach from 2007.
41 comments August 13th, 2008
McCain: Obama’s Iraq Position “Political”
From The Hill:
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain on Sunday asserted that his Democratic rival’s positions on Iraq were politically motivated.
“Sen. Obama doesn’t understand,” the Arizona senator said regarding Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) opposition to the troop surge. “He doesn’t understand what’s at stake here, and he chose to take a political path that would have helped him get the nomination of his party.”
McCain added that, if the path that the Illinois senator advocated had been pursued, there “would have been chaos, genocide, increased Iranian influence, perhaps al Qaeda establishing a base again” in Iraq.
The GOP standard-bearer hopes that his foreign policy and military experience and support for the surge will help convince voters in November that he is the right choice to lead the country.
McCain, in an interview with ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” consistently hammered Obama on security-related issues and defended a remark he made earlier in which he said that the Democrat is willing to lose a war to win a political campaign.
The Arizona senator argued that, while he broke with President Bush and his party to demand that more troops should be sent to Iraq, Obama “made the decision [to oppose the surge], which was political, in order to help him get the nomination of his party.”
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who went on the trip to the Middle East with Obama, criticized the attacks on the Democrat and said McCain is “treading on some very thin ground here when he impugns motives and when we start to get into, ‘You’re less patriotic than me. I’m more patriotic’.”
Hagel, true to form for the anti-war people, is trying to say that any criticism of war criticism is an accusation of being unpatriotic, and thus beyond the pale. This bit of nonsense, I think, will not fly anymore - its clear that McCain does not impugn Obama’s patriotism - just his motivation and his judgement, both of which are highly questionable. For all we know Obama is deep down inside the most Yankee Doodle of all Dandies - what is at issue here is his manifestly wrong position on the troop surge and how that relates to his prospective ability to be President of the United States of America.
The anti-war point of view has been proven wrong from start to finish - it is wrong because it believes that war is just a misunderstanding which can be resolved by patient diplomacy. War, though, is usually the result of a very good understanding - especially on the part of the aggressor, who is usually convinced that his more aggressive nature is the result of inherent superiority. The so-called “peace movement” nearly added another charnel house to its record (for a more complete list of the peace movement’s victims, see my “20th Century Victims of Peace“) - but at the urging of Senator McCain, the calls for surrender by Obama and his Democrats were ignored, and victory has now been secured. And now it is Senator Obama who is seeking maximum personal advantage out of this.
First he used Iraq to wow the left, now he’s trying to use the victory in Iraq as a support for his withdrawal plan (updated, again and again as Obama needs to shift here and there on the political landscape) - he’s trying to have it both ways. Obama wants lefty support due to his anti-war rhetoric, and he wants center support for his call to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan…he’s a peaceful warmonger, I guess.
We can’t afford four years of a President who adjusts his views to his personal, political needs - we need a President who will take an action even when assured it will be unpopular and may, indeed, cost him the White House. Senator McCain is that man; lets keep Obama in the Senate where for the next four to eight years (or ten, if you ask Obama) he can learn from President McCain what it takes to hold the most powerful office in the world.
31 comments July 27th, 2008
Does Victory in Iraq Help Obama?
Interesting recent poll from Rasmussen:
Nearly half of Americans (48%) now believe the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror, as opposed to 20% who give the nod to the terrorists, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national survey. These figures reflect a dramatic improvement from a year ago—in July 2007, only 36% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning. An equal number thought the terrorists held the advantage.
The 28-point difference is the most favorable margin recorded by Rasmussen Reports since tracking began in January 2004 and seems to reflect a growing confidence among adults that the tide is turning in Iraq and in the war on terror in general. The previous high was established on September 6, 2004 when 52% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning but 26% thought the terrorists were winning at that time for a 26-point favorable margin.
Thirty-seven percent (37%) now think the situation in Iraq will get better over the coming six months while only 25% expect it to get worse. A year ago, the assessment was far more pessimistic—just 23% said that things would get better while 49% offered the more pessimistic response. Another recent poll showed that 40% now believe it is possible for the U.S. to win the War in Iraq.
The new findings also show 45% now believe the United States is safer today than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, while 37% believe otherwise. Those figures are also the most optimistic on record.
The standard line about the end of the Cold War is that by putting the fear of nuclear war to bed, it allowed for a foreign policy lightweight - Bill Clinton- to win the White House. Its a great theory, but it forgets that 57% of the American people voted against Bill Clinton in 1992…hardly a ringing endorsement of Clinton’s policy prescriptions. But, today, the same idea is alive and well - heck, over at NRO’s The Corner some people seem to think that the mis-reported story of Maliki on Obama’s Iraq plan has pretty much wrecked McCain’s chances for November. The word is out - the American people really, really want to vote for a Democrat in November and McCain’s only shot was to convince the American people that with a war going on, placing our bets on the inexperienced Obama was too dangerous. And now that victory is breaking out in Iraq, that line is gone for good.
While there are a couple of third party candidates out there on the left and the right, my view is that for Obama to win he’s going to have to do something that no Democrat has managed in 32 years - score an outright majority of the vote in November. He can do it, but thus far the polling shows him consistently falling short and never showing any movement which would indicate he’s on his way to a majority. McCain seems stuck in the electoral doldrums, too - hardly ever breaking 45% in polling (though Rasmussen has recently showed Obama and McCain tied at 46%). What it seems to me is that while Obama has wowed his base, he’s not doing much with anyone else - meanwhile, McCain is doing remarkably well amongst independent voters, but has yet to enthuse the GOP base for November. Key to victory for McCain is energising the base, key for Obama is appealing outside the left.
In this McCain has an advantage. Obama is pretty much locked in to very leftwing positions - he’s tried to triangulate himself out of them, but he can’t stray too far towards the center lest he alienate too much of his base. McCain, on the other hand, has plenty of chances to make the argument to the GOP base that they’d better get excited about him - on taxes, spending, judges and the war, McCain is just what the GOP doctor ordered. McCain has two ways to do his job - propose conservative ideas, and point out Obama’s ultra liberal ideas, and what they’ll mean for America. In both cases, McCain can make a strong pitch for enthused GOP support.
So, while Obama and his Democrats might be thinking that the victory in Iraq gets them off the hook and they can just say “Afghanistan” from time to time and allow domestic issues to carry them to victory, in my view the victory in Iraq gives McCain the chance to force Obama on the defensive initially on just war issues, but eventually on the worthiness of his whole program. A man who can be so wrong about Iraq can also be wrong about other things - like whether or not he’ll be able to stick it out in Afghanistan; whether or not his health care plan is good for America; whether or not his energy policy has what it takes…on issue after issue, Obama’s manifestly bad judgement on Iraq can be used to question his fitness on other issues. And while doing this, McCain can continually point out his correctness on Iraq and how this courageous and right decision lays the groundwork for him to have the courage and wisdom to tackle judicial issues, Afghanistan, taxation, government waste, etc, etc, etc.
If attitudes about the war are improving as Rasmussen’s survey shows, then there may soon come a time when McCain’s pro-victory stance from 2007 switches from liability to asset, while Obama’s 2007 defeatism (already being shoved down the memory hole as far as Obama can manage it) will show through more and more as the foolhardy opinion of a man who hasn’t the knowledge, guts or wisdom to be President.
26 comments July 23rd, 2008
New York Times Helps Obama Hide
This counts as “What Media Bias? Part 117″.
The New York Times rejects a McCain Op-Ed responding to Obama - the offending document, via Drudge:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance…
…Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
The Iraq issue will be, I think, key for McCain - not in the sense that a majority will vote based just on that issue, but that it is the easiest issue for McCain to question Obama’s judgement and further question Obama’s fitness to carry Afghanistan to victory. Obama is staking his foreign/military policy meme on a “get out of Iraq, win in Afghanistan” proposal - the narrative will be that Obama will “end” the war in Iraq so that we can, finally, win in Afghanistan and thus repair all the damage President Bush has done and McCain proposes to continue. But this is a two-edged sword Obama is wielding - McCain can point out that Obama’s defeatism when the going got tough in Iraq indicates that Obama will also flunk the test when things get rough in Afghanistan. Obama ran up the white flag once entirely un-necessarily, what can he say to demonstrate to us that he won’t surrender, again, in Afghanistan?
Obama is nothing but a story - a fraud wrapped up in an illusion. As long as no one points out the nakedness of this would-be Emperor, he’ll be fine. McCain’s job is to force people to see what Obama really is - an ambitious non-entity with no requisite experience justifying installing him in the most powerful position in the world. If the election revolves around which man has the better story, then Obama will be our next President - if the election revolves around who is best able to be President, McCain will be sworn in on January 20th. We’ll have to see if Obama can hide in plain sight until November, or if McCain will force him, naked, into the public view.
28 comments July 22nd, 2008
McCain Contrasts Himself With Obama on Iraq
Can’t say it any clearer than this:
Over the last year, Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy — a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.
Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America’s enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home. Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy…
…In wartime, judgment and experience matter. In a time of war, the commander-in-chief doesn’t get a learning curve. If I have that privilege, I will bring to the job many years of military and political experience; experience that gave me the judgment necessary to make the right call in Iraq a year and half ago. I supported the surge because I believed it was our only realistic chance to reverse the disaster our previous strategy had caused, and the right thing to do for our country. And although events have proven me right, my position wasn’t popular at the time, and I risked my own political ambitions when I took it. When I tell you, I will put our country’s interests — your interests — before party; before any special interest; before my own interests, every hour of every day I’m in office, you can believe me. Because for my entire adult life, in war and peace, nothing has ever been more important to me than the se curity and well-being of the country I love. Thank you.
Obama was wrong about the surge - there is no way around that. More than his being wrong, however, there is now his rank dishonesty - his claims that he didn’t say the surge would fail, his Orwellian excising of his old Iraq position from his website, his attempts to spin himself into an architect of victory when he was singing the siren song of defeatism for the past 18 months. A dishonest man who can’t come up with the right solution - this is not the sort of man we want as President.
John McCain promises us that he’ll put country before everything - and we have the absolute proof that he’ll do that. He really did jump out in front of nearly everyone - including the President - in advocating one of the most unpopular acts our government has ever undertaken, and it worked…and our nation, and the world, is better off for it. All honor to those who saw the way clearly - and let us leave those who wanted to surrender in the dark recesses of our national memory, not elevated to the most powerful office in the world.
18 comments July 16th, 2008
Looking Ahead to Post-War Iraq
We’re tied up in diplomatic knots with the Iraqi government over what to do regarding US forces in Iraq. As this news story notes, we’re not able to come to a complete agreement on how many troops will be in Iraq; for how long; where based; legal issues regarding the independent actions of US forces…pretty much the whole ball of wax, and so what is looked for now is a temporary arrangement to carry the US/Iraqi relations through from the end of the UN mandate on December 31st and the end of 2009. This, of course, will leave the final disposition of Iraq to President Bush’s successor. This means that whatever President Bush envisioned is at least partially set aside and that we don’t know for certain what a President McCain or Obama will do - its all rather up in the air. Here’s what I hope for:
1. A defensive military alliance with Iraq. This will have to be carefully scripted for Iraqi benefit vis a vis our alliance with Israel, but we’ll want an agreement that Iraq will maintain, at least, a benevolent neutrality should we engage in war with Iran, that Iraq will engage in no offensive combinations against Israel, and a right of US intervention should Iran ever attack Iraq. The Iraqi army should be re-equipped, as far as we can convince them to do so, on the American pattern and we should greatly encourage Iraqi military, air and naval officers to train in the United States. We’re trying to build a long-term friendship here.
2. At least two semi-permanent military installations with no more than 50,000 total US personnel based in Iraq - preferrably out in the middle of the Iraqi nowhere and up in Kurdistan. The idea here is two-fold. To provide a “trip wire” should either Iran or Turkey seek to upset the post-war Iraqi settlement and, of course, to secure the military purpose of going into Iraq at all - the ability to project American power into the heart of the middle east. I would still keep our primary miltiary focus on the Persian Gulf - with basing in Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates being far more important given (a) the relative weakness of these States and thus their dependence on a de-facto US protectorate against Iran and (b) our ability to keep major forces outside of the main Arab lands.
3. A bi-lateral free trade agreement.
4. A pledge of US diplomatic support for Iraq in all non-military conflicts with Syria, Iran and Turkey.
That would suffice because, remember, the ultimate point of liberating Iraq is to place into the middle east a functioning, democratic government able to sustain itself against internal and external threats…in the end, it doesn’t matter if the Iraqis vote against us, as long as they vote. The key to winning the War on Terrorism has always been in a free choice by the Arab people to renouce terrorism - and the only way to get that action is by setting up a system where Arabs can choose. Our bet, as it were, always has been that given a free and fair choice, the peoples of the Arab world will choose to live and build rather than kill and destroy.
Keep in mind that as we transition from war to peace in Iraq, there will be bumps in the road - the Iraqis, justifiably, will want to stand up to us and be seen by the world - especially the Arab world - as standing up to us. We must be patient - and always approach the Iraqi people with a sense of understanding for their desire to be proud of their own nation. It is their country - we are in the process of a noble act and nothing can take away from the United States the fact that we sent our best thousands of miles from home to fight for the liberty and dignity of a foreign people. Are reward is the knowledge that after a half century of playing the cynical game of real-politic, we finally went out as Americans and did the completely right thing.
16 comments July 14th, 2008
When Political Games Trump Reality
You get Barack Obama’s policies:
Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult
U.S. Commanders in Iraq Warn of Security Dangers, See Logistical Nightmare
Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy, the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama would “immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”
It is a plan that, no doubt, helped Obama get his party’s nomination, but one that may prove difficult if he is elected president.
Military personnel in Iraq are following the presidential race closely, especially when it comes to Iraq.
The soldiers and commanders we spoke to will not engage in political conversation or talk about any particular candidate, but they had some strong opinions about the military mission which they are trying to accomplish, and the dramatic security gains they have made in the past few months.
We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.
“We still have a ways to go. Number one, we’re working on security and it’s very encouraging, that’s true, but what we’re really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let’s look at the conditions.”…
…On the streets of Baghdad, where a suicide bomber had struck just days before, Capt. Josh West told us he wants to finish the mission, and that any further drawdown has to be based on conditions on the ground.
“If we pull out of here too early, it’s going to establish a vacuum of power that violent criminal groups will be able to fill once we leave,” West said.
Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a West Point graduate on his third deployment, pointed to his heavy body armor as we walked in the 120-degree heat, saying, “The same people keep coming back because we want to see Iraq succeed, that’s what we want. I don’t want my kids, that hopefully will join the military, my notional children, to have to come back to Iraq 30 years from now and wear this.”
But Ussery added, “You can’t put a timetable on it — it’s events-based.”
The report further notes that while we may be able to get the troops out in 16 months, the logistics of getting all the equipment out makes a time table like that unrealistic. As a for-instance, moving out two combat bridages in a month means, among many other things, moving out 1,200 humvees. The fundamental problem with the left - other than the fact that leftwing thought is based on a lie - is that life doesn’t match leftwing conceptions. I doubt much that Obama has ever considered military logistics in formulating his policies - and not in the sense of he knew they were a factor but dismissed them, but that he didn’t know they were a factor. Most liberals aren’t concerned with such things - and this is the result of their over-concentration on purity of intentions as opposed to paying attention to results of actions.
Obama and his Democrats will pull us out of Iraq in 16 months…and they will “end” the war, which is another indication that Obama hasn’t actually thought about what he believes. Wars don’t “end” - they are won, or they are lost. Vietnam didn’t “end” - it was lost. People who have bothered to instruct themselves in matters of foreign and military policy understand that regardless of what one thinks of President Bush and the reasons for liberating Iraq, the fact that we are there now imposes upon us the choice to win, or to lose. Additionally, people who have bothered instructing themselves understand that losing a war is always worse than winning. No matter what high minded goal one has in life, it is better met with victory than with defeat. But in Obama’s fantasy world, intent trumps results and if he wins we’ll be given at least four years of leftwing fantasy clashing with life’s realities.
Thanks, but I prefer John McCain - warts and all - because he lives in the real world…
21 comments July 11th, 2008
Gains in Iraq “Not Reversible”
So says one expert, at least:
Security in Iraq continues to improve even after the withdrawal of nearly 25% of U.S. combat brigades, increasing the prospects of further cuts in American forces.
Although U.S. commanders are cautious about predicting further withdrawals, interviews with military experts and recent official statements indicate growing optimism about the potential to pull out more forces.
“I believe the momentum we have is not reversible,” said Jack Keane, a retired Army vice chief of staff who helped develop the Iraq strategy adopted by President Bush in January 2007.
There will be “significant reductions in 2009 whoever becomes president,” said Keane, who regularly consults with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki echoed Keane’s optimism Saturday by declaring that “we defeated” the terrorists in Iraq. U.S. commanders remain cautious.
The official word remains that its fragile - which is a laudable sense of caution on the part of our military commanders in Iraq. By and large, though, I believe we’re firmly in the saddle in Iraq and only a US scuttle of the whole effort could change the result - and now even Obama is starting to change his tune on Iraq; the rest of the kook left still seems wedded to defeat, but that is because they are, well, kooks.
What we need, now, is to start planning some way of thanking our troops for their sacrifices in this campaign - we can’t gather them all together in one place, but I think we should find some public way to crown their efforts. The traditional means is a ticker tape parade in New York City, and I think that this would be appropriate, especially given that NYC is where the war began - of course, the war isn’t over, but one must pause from time to time to pay tribute to those who having been making the real efforts.
13 comments July 8th, 2008
Obama’s Dishonest Spin on Iraq
Obama’s surrogates are out there on the hustings trying to say that Obama always said the “troop surge” would work - don’t believe it for a moment:
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)
“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)
“But I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 1/10/07)
“But right now what we have is, I think by all accounts, a disaster unfolding in Iraq . We all have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House, to make sure that we can come up with the best strategy. I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum — military and civilian, conservative and liberal — expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq .” (MSNBC’s “Reaction To The State Of The Union Address,” 1/23/07)
“And what was striking to me in listening to all the testimony that was provided, was the almost near unanimity that the president’s strategy will not work. The almost near unanimity among experts on the Middle East and Iraq that the president’s strategy would not work. I was further struck by a consensus among the majority of witnesses that I heard — and, you know, I was not in every minute of every hearing — that we needed to, rather than escalate our troop levels, we actually needed to de-escalate; that, consistent with what the Iraq Study Group had stated, only by indicating in a strong fashion to the Iraqi government that we will not be there in perpetuity will we be able to change the dynamic and force the Shia, Sunni and Kurds to make the political accommodations that are required in order for us to bring some cessation to the violence that exists there. So, what’s striking to me is, at least, outside of politics, consensus seems to be building. It certainly is built among the American people. It is built among the experts in the area. And what remains, then, is the need for us to act.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 1/24/07)
Again and again and again Obama clearly and without qualification stated his view that the surge wouldn’t work and he backed up his view by citing alleged expert testimony stating that it wouldn’t work. There’s no two ways about it - Obama committed himself from the start to the position that the surge would not work. Now that it has worked and Obama is essentially being forced to acknowledge it he is choosing the standard Democratic tactic when faced with gross error - lie, lie and then lie some more. We can’t let Obama get away with this - he owns defeat in Iraq and can’t claim the slightest bit of credit for the fact that we are now winning.
Not only is it disgusting that Obama is trying to slither out of his 2007 defeatism but this attempt shows, if we needed more proof, that Obama is manifestly unfit to be President. A President is a person who must be willing to take the hard decision even if they are unpopular and who must be willing to endure the slings and arrows to ensure that the required things are done - Obama is proving himself a feather blown upon the winds of fashion and motivated entirely by a desire for personal power and prestige.
McCain advocated the surge even before President Bush did - heck, even when I thought the surge wouldn’t be necessary, McCain was out there saying it was. Kudos to McCain for perceiving correctly what needed to be done and more honor to him for staking out a position which was very unpopular at the time it was implemented. McCain, just in this alone, has shown that he has what it takes to be President - in the test of leadership, McCain has passed with flying colors, while Obama is still trying to copy the answers off the smart kid in the room.
53 comments July 2nd, 2008
Baghdad Emerges from Tyranny and Insurgency
Eventually, will even the kook left have to admit they were wrong about Iraq?
The streets of Baghdad are back in business. The teashops are busy. The shops and markets are bustling.
After years when there seemed to be no end to the city’s trauma, people are feeling more confident.
Why, even property prices in Baghdad are rising. According to one estate agent we spoke to, they have doubled in the past four months.
Yes, things are better in Baghdad.
But before we get too carried away, it is important to stress that the improvements, while real, are plainly very brittle.
As US officials readily concede, comments about “breakthroughs” and “corners being turned” are premature…
…it was not simply American force of arms which made the difference.
The US commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, adopted a new approach.
It is instructive to read the “Commander’s Counterinsurgency Guidance” which was issued recently to all US forces in Iraq.
These are some of the headings:
“Serve the population: give them respect: gain their support.”
“Live among the people: you can’t commute to this fight.”
“Walk: stop by, don’t drive by: patrol on foot and engage the population.”
“Promote reconciliation: we cannot kill our way out of this endeavour.”
By and large, that is what the Americans have attempted to do and, by and large, it appears to be working.
From a peak last summer, when security incidents were occurring at the rate of well over 1,000 a week, there has been a steady decline until now they are, according to the Americans, at their lowest point for four years.
Our magnificent troops under an inspired commander and working side by side with Iraqis who want a chance to live and build in a free Iraq have been doing what the left - led by Obama and his Democrats - said was impossible. In fact, Obama and his Democrats were assuring us 18 months ago not that things were bad, but that the game was up and the only thing for us to do was run out of Iraq with our tail between our legs…admit we were whipped by a ragged bunch of terrorists and run-of-the-mill criminal goons. Nothing doing said John McCain - we needed to double down and show what we can do when we set our mind and our magnificent military to the task. The rest, as they say, is history.
The cowardice, opportunism and rank defeatism of the Democrats since 2007 should convince everyone that they must be kept from the levers of power. While John McCain has his flaws - as we all do, being human - and while the GOP can (and must) improve itself mightily, the plain fact of the matter is that McCain and the GOP are far more capable of exercising American power than Obama and his Democrats are.